4 ms·

Like most of modern history: America's fault most recently, but Europe's fault originally.

mms1973 10y ago
When Europe dominated the Middle East (and Africa), it was a pretty safe place. Certainly there was hope. Now the entire region is going down the sink. Maybe the problem instead is that Europe _LEFT_ ?
- tdkl 10y ago
  But, but.. Dictatorships! /s
- nickik 10y ago
  The people there didn't want the Europeans and fought them. The only way to stay their would be to suppress the people more and more. That would also not lead to a flourish of the region.
- mustaflex 10y ago
  the White man's burden syndrom? France was the colonial power in control over there, they used basic divide and conquer tactics. While the sunnis arabs are in majority in Syria they took another minority faction, the nusayriis, and trained them in military schools, etc... to put them in power. It's like having a protestant pope in Vatican. Contrary to Europe where different ethnic groups are well separated in different countries, in the middle-east, like in Irak, you can find arabs, kurds, turks living in the same villages, cities that makes a clean separation almost impossible. They lost the skill to live together in peace, my opinion is that it won't be resolved before civil wars and huge population displacements and even greater hatred between those ethnic groups.
  - zeveb 10y ago
    > France was the colonial power in control over there, they used basic divide and conquer tactics. And while France ran Algeria and Lebanon, they were thriving, pleasant, peaceful, beautiful places. Beirut was once one of the loveliest cities in the world. There are worst things than colonialism; to a first approximation, every single post-colonial country is worse off than it was when it was a colony (I wouldn't count the U.S. as post-colonial because in a very real sense it's a successful colony).
    - mustaflex 10y ago
      I don't know about Algeria, but again in Lebanon your so called "pleasant peaceful and beautiful place" was like that because it did favor minorities and some small groups at the detriment of others. It was bound to collapse after the colonial forces withdrew. And let me be clear, I didn't say that it is better now, but your theory that it was better when colonial powers were in charge is false. "every single post-colonial country is worse off than it was when it was a colony (I wouldn't count the U.S. as post-colonial because in a very real sense it's a successful colony)." ...that is the definition of colonization, it is only successful if you overcome the local population. Again it is successful at the detriment of the local population (or a part of it).
tim333 10y ago
If you look back humans have been having wars as far back as we can see, well before European involvement.
nickik 10y ago
So its Europes fault that Shi'a managed to established a Shi'a Caliphate for the first time, and start a power struggle that would rage in the middle east since that time? I'm not excusing the action of US and all the others, but I just want to point out that they didn't start anything and that before the even existed their were already states in that area that were fighting each other over many of the same borders areas.
jomamaxx 10y ago
"Like most of modern history: America's fault most recently, but Europe's fault originally." America and Europe are stabilizing and largely benevolent forces in the world, and they were even this when they were colonialist. The Middle East is a mess because of the nature and history of the types of cultures there. The most prosperous nations in the region are those that play reasonably in the context of international balance as defined by Western powers. Namely Saudi, Qatar, UAE, and now Jordan, mostly Egypt etc.. Iraq would be mostly ok if Saddam did not invade Kuwait. Syria would be mostly ok if they didn't side with the Soviets, and support Iranian terrorism via Hezbollah. Iran would be mostly ok if they stopped declaring that 'American must be destroyed' and overtly exporting their Islamic Theocratic Revolution outside their borders. The 'internal issues' of Saudi such as human rights etc. - is making slow but steady progress as evidenced by their evolution over the last 50 years. Patience would get us there. Without America or Europe, Middle Eastern powers would have wiped each other out so long as they had access to weapons, or I should say rather, there would be no stability. Without USA+Europe, I believe the Arab world would look like Libya does now internally. This is not to fail to recognize that the US+Europe have made tons of mistakes.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  Without USA+Europe, I believe the Arab world would look like Libya does now internally. This is irony, right? Without Europe and USA, Libya wouldn't look like it does now, and this isn't ancient history: it happened five years ago! It astounds me how much people forget in such a short time. We have a sort of "Forget Disastrous Military Interventions" Complex.
  - jomamaxx 10y ago
    "It astounds me how much people forget in such a short time." I have not 'forgotten' anything. I watched every moment of the Libya episode. I suggest that it is your posture which is 'forgetting'. A) Libya and Gaddafis totalitarianism, his child rape, corruption, cronyism - and admitted direct involvement in terrorism (Lockerbie bombing) - and then his attempts to mass murder dissenter ARE NOT THE FAULT OF THE WEST. 'The West' was left with very little choice but to at least stop the advancing genocidal army. By not participating, 'The West' is de-facto 'picking a side'. So there's no way out of it. 'Power' does not work in a vacum, we can't just 'stay out of it' for the most part. The failure of Libya is 99.9% the fault of Gaddafi, and the various Libyan factions. There's no reason that they can't come to terms and make civilization like everyone else on planet earth. Just because 'The West' can't magically waive it's wand and create democracy, does not mean that it's 'The Wests' fault that democracy does not exist there. Moreover - if 'The West' did not provide a stabilizing framework for the last 100 years - Libya would be in the state that it is now - and possibly much worse. What "astounds me" is how blithely hypocritical are in blaming 'The West' for the mass murdering, totalitarian actions of others. Have a quick visit to Libya and see for yourself. Myself - I was in Tunisia a few years ago and tried to sneak across the border. Fortunately, I failed :)
douche 10y ago
And the Turks fault before that, and Tamerlane's fault before that, and Genghis' fault before that, and the Arabs, Sassanids, Byzantines, etc, ad nauseum. It's the battlegrounds of the world, and always has been.

mms1973 10y ago

When Europe dominated the Middle East (and Africa), it was a pretty safe place. Certainly there was hope. Now the entire region is going down the sink. Maybe the problem instead is that Europe _LEFT_ ?

tdkl 10y ago
But, but.. Dictatorships! /s
nickik 10y ago
The people there didn't want the Europeans and fought them. The only way to stay their would be to suppress the people more and more. That would also not lead to a flourish of the region.
mustaflex 10y ago
the White man's burden syndrom? France was the colonial power in control over there, they used basic divide and conquer tactics. While the sunnis arabs are in majority in Syria they took another minority faction, the nusayriis, and trained them in military schools, etc... to put them in power. It's like having a protestant pope in Vatican. Contrary to Europe where different ethnic groups are well separated in different countries, in the middle-east, like in Irak, you can find arabs, kurds, turks living in the same villages, cities that makes a clean separation almost impossible. They lost the skill to live together in peace, my opinion is that it won't be resolved before civil wars and huge population displacements and even greater hatred between those ethnic groups.
- zeveb 10y ago
  > France was the colonial power in control over there, they used basic divide and conquer tactics. And while France ran Algeria and Lebanon, they were thriving, pleasant, peaceful, beautiful places. Beirut was once one of the loveliest cities in the world. There are worst things than colonialism; to a first approximation, every single post-colonial country is worse off than it was when it was a colony (I wouldn't count the U.S. as post-colonial because in a very real sense it's a successful colony).
  - mustaflex 10y ago
    I don't know about Algeria, but again in Lebanon your so called "pleasant peaceful and beautiful place" was like that because it did favor minorities and some small groups at the detriment of others. It was bound to collapse after the colonial forces withdrew. And let me be clear, I didn't say that it is better now, but your theory that it was better when colonial powers were in charge is false. "every single post-colonial country is worse off than it was when it was a colony (I wouldn't count the U.S. as post-colonial because in a very real sense it's a successful colony)." ...that is the definition of colonization, it is only successful if you overcome the local population. Again it is successful at the detriment of the local population (or a part of it).

tim333 10y ago

If you look back humans have been having wars as far back as we can see, well before European involvement.

nickik 10y ago

So its Europes fault that Shi'a managed to established a Shi'a Caliphate for the first time, and start a power struggle that would rage in the middle east since that time? I'm not excusing the action of US and all the others, but I just want to point out that they didn't start anything and that before the even existed their were already states in that area that were fighting each other over many of the same borders areas.

jomamaxx 10y ago

"Like most of modern history: America's fault most recently, but Europe's fault originally." America and Europe are stabilizing and largely benevolent forces in the world, and they were even this when they were colonialist. The Middle East is a mess because of the nature and history of the types of cultures there. The most prosperous nations in the region are those that play reasonably in the context of international balance as defined by Western powers. Namely Saudi, Qatar, UAE, and now Jordan, mostly Egypt etc.. Iraq would be mostly ok if Saddam did not invade Kuwait. Syria would be mostly ok if they didn't side with the Soviets, and support Iranian terrorism via Hezbollah. Iran would be mostly ok if they stopped declaring that 'American must be destroyed' and overtly exporting their Islamic Theocratic Revolution outside their borders. The 'internal issues' of Saudi such as human rights etc. - is making slow but steady progress as evidenced by their evolution over the last 50 years. Patience would get us there. Without America or Europe, Middle Eastern powers would have wiped each other out so long as they had access to weapons, or I should say rather, there would be no stability. Without USA+Europe, I believe the Arab world would look like Libya does now internally. This is not to fail to recognize that the US+Europe have made tons of mistakes.

jessaustin 10y ago
Without USA+Europe, I believe the Arab world would look like Libya does now internally. This is irony, right? Without Europe and USA, Libya wouldn't look like it does now, and this isn't ancient history: it happened five years ago! It astounds me how much people forget in such a short time. We have a sort of "Forget Disastrous Military Interventions" Complex.
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  "It astounds me how much people forget in such a short time." I have not 'forgotten' anything. I watched every moment of the Libya episode. I suggest that it is your posture which is 'forgetting'. A) Libya and Gaddafis totalitarianism, his child rape, corruption, cronyism - and admitted direct involvement in terrorism (Lockerbie bombing) - and then his attempts to mass murder dissenter ARE NOT THE FAULT OF THE WEST. 'The West' was left with very little choice but to at least stop the advancing genocidal army. By not participating, 'The West' is de-facto 'picking a side'. So there's no way out of it. 'Power' does not work in a vacum, we can't just 'stay out of it' for the most part. The failure of Libya is 99.9% the fault of Gaddafi, and the various Libyan factions. There's no reason that they can't come to terms and make civilization like everyone else on planet earth. Just because 'The West' can't magically waive it's wand and create democracy, does not mean that it's 'The Wests' fault that democracy does not exist there. Moreover - if 'The West' did not provide a stabilizing framework for the last 100 years - Libya would be in the state that it is now - and possibly much worse. What "astounds me" is how blithely hypocritical are in blaming 'The West' for the mass murdering, totalitarian actions of others. Have a quick visit to Libya and see for yourself. Myself - I was in Tunisia a few years ago and tried to sneak across the border. Fortunately, I failed :)

douche 10y ago

And the Turks fault before that, and Tamerlane's fault before that, and Genghis' fault before that, and the Arabs, Sassanids, Byzantines, etc, ad nauseum. It's the battlegrounds of the world, and always has been.